Verno wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 18:39:There's a pretty big difference in long development times and games that take a decade but you knew that already. Starcraft 2 is many wonderful things but it's not a game worthy of a six year development cycle, let alone twelve. Blizzard may be notorious for their painstaking process but that doesn't mean people need to be happy with it. I'm sure theres some amusing project management failures tied into the whole story anyways. Yes, I am taking into account that development does not take place in a vacuum where no other products are worked on. Prez and anyone who agrees with him on those points isn't being unreasonable in pointing it out either.

Actually they started working on SC2 in 2003, and did not begin full development until 2005. Taking 5-6 years to make a game is not inconsistent with the RTS team's previous effort, Warcraft 3.

Prez wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 18:15:For the record, I'm not accusing you of Fanboyism. I'm a fanboy of a lot of stuff. I'm accusing you of rampant attack dog apologist attacks over small comments about a company you act like you're blood-sworn to defend. I will not be brow beat into changing my opinion because you want to argue that making another game in the interim somehow excuses a company with virtually infinite resources from taking 12 years to provide a sequel to a fan-favorite game. That's patently ridiculous, like your whole crusade to defend all things Blizzard.

As far as flipping out, I tend to flip out when someone pulls a moronic stunt like pulling an off-handed quote in parentheses not related to the post or thread in question just to start a fight and prove how right you are. That was completely stupid and childish on your part, so the whole discussion is your fault.

I never said you accused me of fanboyism. Are you and Verno the same person and lose track of who I'm replying to or something? You accusing me of doing imaginary things seem like a theme around here.

And you're saying that because Blizzard's MMO division made a lot of money, the logical next step is for them to expand their RTS division? You're the ridiculous one here.

And now saying shit in parenthesis makes it off limits to comment on? Oh yeah, I'm going to say a lot of things in my post, but remember, you can only respond to the things I want to discuss. Are you fucking kidding me?

Trying to start a fight? What the fuck are you talking about? Did I say something personal? Did I make fun of you or your music or your family or something? I pointed out that they also made Warcraft 3. You viewed this as an attempt to start a fight, and flipped the fuck out. Right, I'm the childish one here.

Lowering the unit cap and clustering units into groups alone is an act designed to simply the gameplay.

CoH features a much larger cast of units in multiplayer than Starcraft 2 and that's without going into the engine limitations given the graphical fidelity of the game. Their approach was arguably necessary for their particular product. It in no way affects the actual strategy and flow of gameplay though. CoH has considerably deep high level play much like Starcraft and unlike pretty much every other RTS disappointment from the past ten years.

Starcraft 2 features 46 units, while COH features 40. That's counting mirror units like Axis Sniper and Allied Sniper. And engine limitations may affect the maximum unit cap, but that doesn't account for the group mechanism. No longer being able to control individual soldiers and relying on AI to position your individual troops is simplifying the game. And saying army size doesn't affect the strategy or flow of gameplay is wrong. Controlling a company of men or a platoon of men does not result in the exact same strategies or gameplay.

Verno wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 17:17:Stupid posts offend me, not posts about a particular game. You made a very stupid post about CoH and I called you out on it, deal. Yes, you obviously suffer from brand loyalty given your agitation in every SC2 thread that I've seen. You have every right to think people are entitled little babies but that doesn't mean their complaints are wrong. Your rant about development times was barely even tangentially related to what Prez is talking about. He wasn't trolling or even being unreasonable. Blizzard has a huge PR division already and a great name amongst gamers. They can suffer the few justified complaints.

Yes stupid posts offend me too, and Prez didn't need to flip out when I mentioned Warcraft 3. Saying "FFS, they also made Warcraft 3" - what a outrageous fanboy attack on your sensibilities! Quick! Let's run to Prez's rescue!

And how is my "rant" about development times not related, considering we are talking about long development times here? You coming in here and ranting about posts from another thread is what's actually irrelevant; What do discussions about Starcraft 2's gameplay or COH have anything to do with Prez and I talking about the 12 years it took for Blizzard to put out a sequel? You're just dragging things from other threads into this one and stirring shit up. There's another thread out there for you to mount your ardent and hypocritical defense of COH while accusing others of fanboyism. This comment was edited on Aug 5, 2010, 18:06.

How would someone view replays without owning SC2 to run the game engine? The whole point of the replays is to have full view of the arena and be able to move the camera around to see what other people were doing, so encoding to a movie format would nullify this feature.

They already offer a download of the full game on battle.net. If they set it up so anyone could watch the replays they could just make the replays run in game.

You don't even need a key to download it, just click download and you've got the full game sitting there. You can watch the intro, tweak settings, you just can't log in and do anything. I think it'd be smart to let people download replays and watch the MP games. I'd feel better about buying the game if I got to see a wider variety of the MP games.

There are lots of replay websites available for SC2 multiplayer matches. You need to log in to watch replays.

Verno wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 22:38:This is offensively stupid and incorrect, CoH isn't dumbed down in the slightest. Territory control rewards strategic thought with tangible benefits while punishing the unthinking player. If anything CoH isn't as accessible as Starcraft in some respects. Both games are great examples of deceptively "simple" play with a sky limit on actual strategy on a per battle basis and that's the way it should be. If you want to talk about dumbed down RTS then there are a dozen better examples like Dawn of War II or even another Blizzard creation - Warcraft III.

If you want to defend your favorite RTS title then fine but don't attack the only decent RTS made in the better part of a decade to make your point. In the end both CoH and SC2 reward aggressive scouting and playstyle more than actual high level strategy in the first place.

Lowering the unit cap and clustering units into groups alone is an act designed to simply the gameplay. In no way am I insinuating that COH is easy to play, or a bad game, and I definitely agree with you there are better examples to use. So forgive me for not explaining myself. It was addressed to an idiot, using idiotic logic in reflection. Not much thought was put into it, and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 07:55:Yifes, I called you a fanboy because you can't seem to take a step back from the game you're a fan of during this "discussion" ergo you deny the flaws and heat up while doing so. Also, nit-picking at every word from the other party during a discussion is weak and lame and it only slows a discussion down immensely. Sadly about 98% of the people do this. Offtopic: This is also the reason nothing ever changes in democracy.

I wasn't trying to make my opinion sound like fact, and your effort to put others against me by claiming it in the fashion that you did is so horrid and pathetic that I can only laugh at you. So sad.

I'm not backing up because you're not making an argument. You're just stating your opinion and not acknowledging my counter-examples. Unfortunately, it seems that you find using actual examples in a discussion extraneous. Hey, why bring reality into a conversation and slow it down when we can just talk about how we feel? And when you make broad sweeping statements like "there's nothing new here", and I disagree with you, that's not nitpicking over just words.

And yeah, I've recognized that you don't like RTS games, and that this is your opinion. I've stated this numerous times in my previous posts. If you got offended by me using the word "fact" that one time, then my bad. Let's not nit-pick at every word here, k? Imagining that I have some evil plot to turn public opinion against you when all we're doing is having a conversation, now that's sad.

Is that the "judge me not by what I say but what I say is allowed to be picked" argument? You're in every SC2 discussion going fanboy when people say anything remotely negative. I did not think it was even possible for someones judgment to be so clouded by misguided brand loyalty that they would excuse a twelve year gap between titles.

I've criticized Blizzard's storytelling numerous times before, which apparently you missed when you oh so accurately summed up my starcraft 2 posting history. And spare me that "you disagree with me so therefore you're a fanboy" bullshit. I've had better discussions with people on youtube. I thought you Verno, of all people on this board, would be above such silliness. If you have any specific issues on why my judgement is "clouded", then bring it up.

If you're wondering why I'm commenting, then here's why: How many old PC franchises actually get proper sequels these days? 90% of my favorite games of all time will never again see the light of day. So yeah, it's annoying when great sequel gets released and people bitch about the development time. If Warren Spector announces a PC exclusive, true spirited sequel to Deus Ex tomorrow, I swear some of you around here will still bitch about how long that took. And yeah, I'll respond to you the same way when Valve releases Half Life 3 and you start bitching about how long that took.

And I'm not the only one around here that feels the bitching stems from a sense of entitlement. I've clearly stated that it's exceedingly rare when ANY PC game gets a good sequel nowadays, and if you still think this attitude is somehow exclusively tied to Blizzard, then you can kindly fuck off.

Edit: I see now why you're so adamant at labeling me a fanboy. Apparently someone feels quite strongly about COH, and had their own defensive reaction. See the discussion in the other thread.

Prez wrote on Aug 5, 2010, 07:47:What gets old Yifey, is how you cherry pick off-hand comments that don't make-up the gist of my post just to bitch at me some more. I don't care how many times you think you have addressed it, because I still see it as a severe deficiency within Blizzard's business. You act like you HAVE to read my posts and are equally compelled to respond.

Please tell me that the irony of you bitching about my bitching isn't lost on you.

You've been bitching about the same thing since Starcraft was announced 2 years ago; This is only the second time that I've ever addressed you personally. So stop overreacting when all I did in the original post was mention that Blizzard also made Warcraft 3, k?

Honestly, only in some twisted, surreal alternate reality would a fan be bitched at for daring to complain that the sequel to their favorite RTS series of all times took too long when it took 12 years to arrive. Especially in light of the fact that Blizzard devs have themselves acknowledged their faults in this area when it was acknowledged that they just accept this as a tradeoff for keeping a small core team and also that they always hype their games too early.

When you know Blizzard's history, when you know how they operate, when you know why a game took 12 years to come out (because they were working on something else), and you're still complaining about the exact. same. thing. that you've been complaining about since the game was announced 2 years ago, that's not called negative feedback.

Prez is a fairly low key guy and you appear to be the one taking it personally in this and many other threads. Blizzard will survive attacks on their name without your feverish defense at every opportunity.

So I quote his JESUS H CHRIST, and now I'm the one taking it personally? Maybe you should stop judging me by my conversations with other people that have nothing to do with this discussion with Prez.

But hey, maybe you think I'm going too far by pointing out that Blizzard has more than 1 franchise.

Are you not capable of having a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without calling them a fanboy?

eah yeah yeah thing is, I did play some other RTS games in the last few years and although I never finished them I know all too well that the unit upgrades etc etc is nothing new. It doesn't take an RTS fan to be able to talk about the genre, dude.

If you want to talk about the genre, and say that there's nothing new here, then tell me, what other RTS that has a mission based around flowing lava, or a mission based around night and day, or another unit in a RTS that has an ability like the sentry's forcefield. What other game has the meta game where you upgrade, research and hire unique units?

And yes, there are two more difficulties.. but I chose "Normal" and it's extremely easy for this guy that prefers to just build as many units as he can to then swoop over the enemy in pure overkill. It's called imbalance.

Wait, so you're still complaining how the game is too easy on normal? I don't even see your point here. If I beat DOOM on "I'm too young to die" using only the pistol, that doesn't mean the pistol is overpowered and there's no point using the other guns. Just because you beat normal with stupid strategies doesn't mean it'll work on Hard or Brutal.

The game is good and it's polished and for an RTS game I love it. I said this. But should it be as ridiculously praised as it is? I, personally, don't think so.

And that's fine. Like I said, your opinion stems from the fact that you don't like RTS games in general. But don't go all Kanye West up in here and expect people to welcome your opinion as fact without any discussion.

Eldaron Imotholin wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 19:58:This or that, the extreme and over-the-top hype around this game made the whole reception of it a self-fulfilled prophecy... ergo it is indeed overrated.

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun even for me although I dislike the genre. The thing I find obvious though is how I realize how much this game lacks innovation except for the detailed breaks between missions. The mission graphics aren't stunning and even I find the game way too easy on normal, while I should've chosen Easy if I listened to the description.. since I never play RTS games.

The game is in fact so easy that I can use the same tactics over and over again, which are noob-tactics -- ...they have to be...?

I also think the maps are tiny. Shamefully tiny.

Anyway! Yeah. Overrated. Definitely. Almost an idiotic reception, if you ask me. A good and polished game? Yes. But just another good and polished RTS game.

Yes the game is quite easy on Normal, but that's why there's 2 more difficulty levels after that. Try them before you complain about using the same tactics over and over again.

On the innovation front, there's more than the cutscenes between missions. There's the campaign choices, the unique units, the upgrades, the map editor, the new mission mechanics, the multiplayer mechanics, etc. None of which are seen in other RTS games. Name another RTS that has a mission based around flowing lava, or a mission based around night and day, or another unit in a RTS that has an ability like the sentry's forcefield.

And complaining about how the maps are tiny in SC is like complaining about how tiny the maps are in TF2. Not every game has to have the scope of Crysis or Just Cause.

So yeah, like you said, you don't like RTS games. But realize that it's due to your personal bias that you don't give a shit about any of the changes Blizzard has made. The bottom line is that Blizzard's innovations are for fans of RTS games. Just because they didn't completely overhaul the game into something else - something that you care about - doesn't mean that it lacks innovation or is overrated.

And if by extreme over the top hype you mean extreme negative publicity, then you'd be actually right. RealID, No LAN, $60, Split into 3 games, etc - If you think Blizzard had it easy with public opinion up to now, then you're hilariously mistaken. Overhyped, idiotic reception? Bullshit.

Prez wrote on Aug 4, 2010, 17:44:So frickin' what?! Regardless of the situation. Regardless of the circumstances. Regardless of any excuses apologists want to proclaim over and over again, the sequel took 12 years to arrive. Any way you slice it that's abysmal fan service.

God, someone says anything remotely negative about your precious Blizzard and you immediately swoop in like a trained hound to bitch at them about. JESUS H CHRIST, are you a paid attack dog for Blizzard or something?!?

JESUS H CHRIST would you calm down? Did you take it personally and pop an aneurysm or something? Is it "apologist" to point out that Blizzard has more franchises than just Starcraft?

If you're wondering why I'm commenting, then here's why: How many old PC franchises actually get proper sequels these days? 90% of my favorite games of all time will never again see the light of day. So yeah, it's annoying when great sequel gets released and people bitch about the development time. If Warren Spector announces a PC exclusive, true spirited sequel to Deus Ex tomorrow, I swear some of you around here will still bitch about how long that took. And yeah, I'll respond to you the same way when Valve releases Half Life 3 and you start bitching about how long that took.

Darks wrote on Aug 3, 2010, 10:33:yea, joke about it nin, but your one of those brainwashed idiots too. you all fell into Blizzard mindtrap. They have created their own inception on you guys and you all fell for it hook line and sinker!

Starcraft 2, the most over rated and over hyped game of the year. this is the award this game should win.

RAARRR I CAN"T CONTROL MORE THAN 5 UNITS AT A TIME THEREFORE STARCRAFT OUTDATED AND ITS SHIT. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS BRAINWASHED RAAAARRRRRR.

It's a different style of game than COH. Not everyone wants all their RTS games dumbed down to the level of COH.

TurdFergasun wrote on Aug 3, 2010, 22:34:haven't finished playing the game, but so far i'm fairly disappointed in the frequencey of the full quality cgi scenes. it seems for the meat of the story they put together an engine which they could just input some simpletext dialogue and ran the puppets through a lip syncing system. very un-natural looking, and while acceptable for a game like mass effect it's quite cheap looking when stacked against the achievements of the original sc and sc:bw in terms of story telling and art quality.

Are you serious? You're calling SC1's talking head's and scrolling text an achievement for that time? Especially when Westwood already had full live action cutscenes?

Too many people look at SC1's campaign through rose colored glasses. It was nothing special.

Drezden wrote on Aug 2, 2010, 17:22:Congratulations on buying 1/3 of a game. Feel free to argue this with your "But there is close to 30 missions" arguements all you want. It doesn't contain all 3 races campaigns like the original did, so it will always be 1/3 of a game to me. Won't pay for that. I'm offended enough by all the inadequate DLC companies are already getting people to pay for, and the inadequate sequels like Modern Warfare 2 that middle america is willing to shell out for at the drop of the name. I miss the days of quality over quantity and money grubbing. Blizzard used to be a company I respected, now they're just another money scheming company under the umbrella that is Activision.

This "1/3" of a game's single player blows the original SC's campaign out of the water. Your loss for not playing a great game because of your own stupidity.

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 1, 2010, 21:04:Its a quality game, but not a quality story ;p

And a bad story alone is enough to give a game a C+? Giving the single player a C+ is pure bullshit, considering everything about it - the mission design, the between mission hub, the unique units and upgrades, the mercenaries - makes it leagues better than the original Starcraft.

How does it NOT progress SC canon, given what happens in the end and all the revelations?

So Raynor was an outlaw before he was a hero. Big deal. Not inconsistent with SC1 at all.

Mensk was a genius strategist - he wounldn't give press conferences: That was 4 years ago. He's now the emperor of his own dominion. Who says the emperor won't try to communicate with his subjects?

20 of the 26 missions have nothing to do with the story: WTF are you talking about? Those missions tell their own story. Just because you don't care about anything besides the returning Brood War characters doesn't mean there's no story there.

Yeah the overall story is nothing special, but neither was SC1's. The only thing special about Starcraft 1 was its multiplayer. Starcraft 2 absolutely dominates Starcraft 1's mediocre singleplayer.